Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Rossw]

Kevin, I know you have a mountain of knowledge and you like to overwhelm us with it in your posts but much of the time there just isn't much relevance in what you say. Mostly just a historic digression of Jewish extrabiblical tradition instead of sticking to the topic and the Bible.

You said if the Bible were to be taken as "thus saith the Lord" you could not support WO yet that is exactly how EGW told us to interpret it. I showed you a quote which points at man's arrogance in knowing more than Scripture.

I think Kevin is worried his education may have misled him so he needs to protect his education. The problem I see with Kevin's arguments is that he thinks the Bible ISN'T good enough for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. SDA university instruction is for teaching, rebuking, etc.

[Green Cochoa]

17 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Green, you give Bible verses and read into them your interpretation, theories and tradition and that's "Biblical" when confronted with the historical, cultural, linguistic studies that question your interpretation you cannot consider those pieces of evidence because you decide that none of that if Biblical.

Kevin,

Thank you for the compliment.  I would much rather be thought of as having my own interpretation while using the Bible, than to be caught using extra-bibilcal sources and claiming they had the same relevance or authority as the Bible.  When I was in college, I often disagreed with my professors.  They were fallible, and imperfect.  One asked us to question the existence of God, and gave higher scores to those students who praised the works of such authors as Machiavelli, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, St. Augustine, etc., while I and another student who compared those authors against the Bible and Ellen White were given low scores.  My writing quality had nothing to do with those scores, as I am well able to write a solid essay.  

Unfortunately, many today place their professors upon a pedestal.  I think it is human nature for two reasons: 1) people respect their higher-status teachers, and tend to overlook their errors; and 2) people wish to claim excellent professors taught them for the sense of pride in their own educational attainments.  (Who would want to claim having had poor-quality professors?)  To our shame, many in our church today have begun looking to their teachers for doing their study for them, and the teachers have set the Bible aside.

[Kevin H]

But you also don't like the teachers who have NOT set the Bible aside.

[Rossw]

It'd be a separate matter to debate which teachers have or have not set the Bible aside. It's like someone calling themselves a moderate. Most people think they are moderate but with the wide range of views amongst the people not all actually are moderate. The only thing that matters is what the Bible says and teaches. Not the interpretation of any teacher.

[Tom Wetmore]

Administrative Note:

This discussion is drifting and risking getting sidetracked into tangential issues.  It is also dancing dangerously into ad hominem land.  Let's get this back on topic and stick to the topic.  

[Green Cochoa]

On June 20, 2016 at 11:08 AM, LadyRachelLynn said:

No one would EVER try to say that Samuel, Elisha, Elijah or Jeremiah were not in leadership positions.  Yet Deborah couldn't be because she was a woman?  She was a prophetess just the same as the men.

I guess I'm a nobody.  I would acknowledge only Samuel in your list to have been in a leadership position.  He was a priest in addition to being a prophet.  None of the others were leaders.  In the time of Elijah and Elisha, you recall, there were kings like Ahab (and the wicked queen Jezebel, from whom Elijah fled).  In the time of Jeremiah, the king put him in stocks.

Deborah did not lead the army, that was a man's job--though the man did ask her to accompany him. 

Many people look to support their opinions in the Bible instead of looking for the Bible to correct them.  Today, those who desire to elevate women to leadership, as the Washington Conference exemplifies, do so in ignorance, following public opinion more than a plain "thus saith the LORD."  This issue has become a religious crisis.  Because Ellen White tells us what we are to do in a religious crisis, I post here.  Here is what she says:

"What astonishing deception and fearful blindness had, like a dark cloud, covered Israel! This blindness and apostasy had not closed about them suddenly; it had come upon them gradually as they had not heeded the word of reproof and warning which the Lord had sent to them because of their pride and their sins. And now, in this fearful crisis, in the presence of the idolatrous priests and the apostate king, they remained neutral. If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God."  {3T 280.3}  

I, not wishing to be hostile against God, must not remain indifferent to this crisis.  It is my duty to speak.  There are many in our church today who are not doing their duty in this regard.  If they had done their duty, perhaps our church would never have reached such levels of rebellion as we are seeing.  This movement began with the Columbia Union, and California and Germany soon followed suit.  It has spread now to Scandinavia…and Washington.  It is clear that the disaffection is continuing to spread.  If each member, man and woman, of the church were to truly examine his or her heart, and see where he or she stood in the sight of God, praying humbly to know His will on the matter, I think the direction of our church would be altered significantly.  Mrs. White has told us nothing should distract us from the work of spreading the third angel's message.  What, then, are we doing?  How easily have we been led into this sidetrack.  The day of God alone will reveal the immense cost, in terms of souls lost, this has meant.  Where I am, we could use some help.  But the help seems to be tied up at home, bickering about ordination, while only 0.018% (less than 2/100ths of a percent) of people in this country are Adventist.  If the women want to serve, let them come as missionaries.  We need them.  Women can be missionaries for God.  As Mrs. White says:

"Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation; their lives should be spotless, above everything that savors of impurity. . . ." {5T 597.2}

While the "sacred desk" is reserved for men, no restrictions on missionaries exist.  And do we ever need them!

Please, ladies, please consider a term of missionary service.  Your gifts are needed.  Women often learn languages more quickly.  Where I am, the languages are not easy to learn.  Are you desirous of a real challenge?  Would you like to try something more difficult than being a minister in a Christian country?  Why not take the gospel behind enemy lines, to a place, such as this, where Christian work is frequently sanctioned against.  Women usually have more liberty, as the fairer and gentler sex, in terms of enforcement.  We need brave women!

 

[Rossw]

It's interesting when the prophets and judges are brought up in a discussion like this when they were hated by the spiritual and political leadership of Israel. The irony here does not escape me.

[Kevin H]

General Conference Session 5 December 1881:
“Resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.
“This was discussed by J.O. Corliss, A.C. Bordeau, E.R. Jones, D.H. Lamson. W.H. Littlejohn, A.S. Hutchins, D.M. Canright, and J.N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.”

This was voted and passed but not implemented. Whey did Mrs. White not tell them that they were doing wrong?

 

[Tom Wetmore]

The evidence strongly suggests that the resolution was in fact implemented.  This resolution was voted at the Session following James White's death. Prior to his death following common practice of the Church in those days, husband and wife ministry teams were issued joint credentials. If one died or left ministry and the other continued that one was issued an individual credential.  Ellen White was issued an ordained minster credential by the Michigan Conference less than 2 years after that resolution.  It was signed by the conference president who was present at the 1881 GC Session that voted that resolution.  The resolution that was voted was referred to the GC Committee which was only a small group of 3-5 people, basically the three officers and one or two others. In the years that followed, EGW was issued ordained minister credentials by the GC Committee to which that resolution had been referred. Her credentials were signed by individuals actually present at the 1881 Session for the discussion of that resolution.  Uriah Smith was one such person.  Not only was he at the 1881 Session, he was the 1881 Session Secretary, and as I recall, he was on the resolution committee that drafted the resolution and presented it to the Session.  

I think we incorrectly assumed and have looked for evidence of documentation of further deliberation about the resolution by the GC Committee before they acted upon it.  Logically, why would there be such evidence when the members of the GC Committee were a part of the original discussion of the resolution itself? The credentials issued to EGW are the documented evidence of their follow up and implementation of the resolution that had been referred to them for that to be done. 

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote

While the "sacred desk" is reserved for men...

EGW, a woman, preached from the "sacred desk" thousands of times.  There were a number of other Adventist female licensed ministers in her lifetime that also preached from the "sacred desk".  I think you are reading that incorrectly as a gender restrictive statement rather than a general statement inclusive of whoever, male or female.

[Tom Wetmore]

15 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Deborah did not lead the army...

Perhaps not, but the context is clear that she lead Barak.  She directed and instructed him.   That was because she was the judge of Israel at that time.  Read Judges 2.  "God raised up judges..."   The judges ruled, governed and judged the people.  They were the God appointed leaders of Israel after the death of Joshua. Deborah lead Israel.  Barak only lead the army of Israel.  That put her in a position of authority above him.  Appointed so by God.  A woman. 

[Rossw]

Summary

From 1871 until her death in 1915, Ellen White was issued ministerial credentials. From 1871 to 1887 she was credentialed by the Michigan Conference, and from 1884 until her death, she was credentialed as a General Conference Minister. On one of the credentials (1885), the word "ordained" is struck through. (In the 1888 Yearbook she was also listed among the California Ministers.) Throughout the years, her name was listed along with ordained ministers rather than licentiates, although her biographical information sheet and the testimony of her family indicates that she did not receive ordination at the hands of church officials.

Compiled by the Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.
October 2012

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/egw_credentials/egw_credentials.htm

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw:  Exactly. This is exactly what many of us have been saying for years.  The SDA denomination proclaimed EGW as an ordained minister for a number of years as they believed that her  ordination had come from God.

Did they have any other option?  Yes.  They could have given her the credentials of a licensed minister, which is one who is not ordained.

The YEARBOOK has nothing to do with the pay that an employees either receives, or does not receive.  Rather it lists their status as an employee.  EGW could have been listed as an employee who was not ordained.

Thank you for pointing out that she was issued the credentials of an ordained minister for about 44 years.

It is of interest that the very same year that the credentials has the word "ordained" crossed out (although we do not know by whom), that she was listed as an ordained minister in the YEARBOOK.

 

[Rossw]

2 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Perhaps not, but the context is clear that she lead Barak.  She directed and instructed him.   That was because she was the judge of Israel at that time.  Read Judges 2.  "God raised up judges..."   The judges ruled, governed and judged the people.  They were the God appointed leaders of Israel after the death of Joshua. Deborah lead Israel.  Barak only lead the army of Israel.  That put her in a position of authority above him.  Appointed so by God.  A woman. 

Did the Judges rule and govern? Did Deborah lead Israel? It seems they were pretty disobedient. I don't see where Deborah had authority over Barak. 

EGW did give council but was she the authority over the church?

Your trying to have your cake and eat it too but really are throwing the baby out with the bathwater . I thought you said God was the only head of the church?

[Tom Wetmore]

The answer is yes to all of your questions.  Yes the judges did rule and govern Israel.  Since Deborah was a judge of Israel, she also did. (I suspect nobody would question the role of the judges of Israel had a woman not been among them.)  

And yes, EGW was considered an authority (still is) in the Church. It is clear that the highest officials of the Church sought and followed her council. 

Go read the book of Judges.  Pay close attention to the dialog between Deborah and Barak.  Use some basic study aids to assist in understanding what the original language word for judge means, if need be.  Here is one I often use - https://www.blueletterbible.org 

Quote

Your trying to have your cake and eat it too but really are throwing the baby out with the bathwater . I thought you said God was the only head of the church?

Not sure how you arrive at that mixed metaphor of a conclusion or exactly what your point is.  OT vs. NT makes a difference.  This  story isn't about headship, but rather leadership.  There is a difference.

[Rossw]

 

29 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The answer is yes to all of your questions.  Yes the judges did rule and govern Israel.  Since Deborah was a judge of Israel, she also did. (I suspect nobody would question the role of the judges of Israel had a woman not been among them.)  

And yes, EGW was considered an authority (still is) in the Church. It is clear that the highest officials of the Church sought and followed her council. 

Go read the book of Judges.  Pay close attention to the dialog between Deborah and Barak.  Use some basic study aids to assist in understanding what the original language word for judge means, if need be.  Here is one I often use - https://www.blueletterbible.org 

Not sure how you arrive at that mixed metaphor of a conclusion or exactly what your point is.  OT vs. NT makes a difference.  This  story isn't about headship, but rather leadership.  There is a difference.

You put EGW as a judge or authority over the church and use her as an example for WO yet in the next breath claim headship is heresy yet between having EGW and a GC president we know your denial of headship is contradictory.

One thing we should remember is the SDA denomination is not the Christian Church. To say otherwise is to admit the SDA church is a cult. It is likely the organization will be spit out anyway.

[Kevin H]

In the Bible there is a hierarchy  given:

1 Corinthians 12:28 says "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Christ is the head of the church then comes Apostles, those who heard Jesus teach and witnessed the fact that he rose from the dead (we have at minimum 82 or as many as over 500. and it is a hard argument to either prove or at least give evidence that there was not a woman among them). then come prophets, then teachers, then some of the other gifts such as governments or administration.

We are expecting kingly powers but the Bible teaches servant leadership. When we see Mrs. White trying to work with the General conference we say that she was doing the woman's role of submitting to male authority. The anti-ordination people moves prophet to merely a supportive role so that they can downgrade Mrs. White for their headship theories. That is not following what the Bible teaches.
 

[Kevin H]

Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."

[Rossw]

17 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."

In a way aren't we all supposed to be pastors to the world? Is that the context of what she said?

[Kevin H]

We are all pastors to the world, but here she mentions pastors to the flock of God.

There is interesting reasoning among the anti-ordination people. They have their "proof texts" that does not mention the word "Ordination" Mrs. White has done everything that the "Proof texts" say a woman should do. The critics of ordination say that a woman can do everything Paul apparently says women should not do but says we can do them just as long as a woman is not ordained. They have added the idea that only ordained women are not to do these things.

Also, in reality, we have ordained women for decades. An ordained minister meant that they have proven themselves capable of doing a job as opposed to being an apprentice.  There were things that only an ordained minister could do such as marrying, burying, baptism (and Mrs. White questioned the requirement of only the ordained baptizing with there being some flexibility if no elder) and a couple of other things. People needed to be ordained to become a chaplain in say the military or other places that hired chaplains. We have created a vocabulary loophole to grant women the right to do everything that was limited for ordained ministers with the exception of one or two things in administration (things that most ordained ministers would not do anyway). That is a token hold out to appease the anti-ordination people. And thus it makes it a lie. In all but title and those token hold backs capable women do everything that the word "Ordination" implied. We "Pro ordination" people are just recognizing this and wants the church to be honest. The "anti-ordination" people wants to continue the illusion by avoiding the word and an maintaining those token events that are held out and to continue the illusion.

[Green Cochoa]

9 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The credentials issued to EGW are the documented evidence of their follow up and implementation of the resolution that had been referred to them for that to be done. 

FACT: Ellen White is the ONLY woman in Adventist history to have officially occupied the status of a prophet.

FACT: There has never been an Adventist male prophet to be officially recognized by the church.

FACT: The church had no official title nor position for "prophet" in its wage scale.

FACT: Ellen White, if for no other reason than being Elder James White's widow, deserved to be financially supported by the church.

FACT: The church elected to support Ellen White on the same level as that of an ordained minister, and issued the credentials to make this official with them.

FACT: Ellen White was never ordained.

FACT: Ellen White never pastored a church.

FACT: Ellen White never performed a baptism, and never officiated at a wedding ceremony nor a funeral.

FACT: Ellen White was never the General Conference president, nor was ever a president of any organization.

FACT: Ellen White preached many sermons, in many churches, and at many camp meetings or large gatherings.

FACT: Ellen White submitted to her husband's authority.

FACT: Ellen White's visions were not "manufactured" by her, but came from God--she was just His "messenger."

FACT: If any king, ruler, or leader sends a messenger with a message (e.g. to another leader), the messenger is NOT held in authority over the recipient of that message--the authority figure is the message Sender.

FACT: The Bible says plainly that a woman is not to usurp authority over a man.

FACT: The Bible's criteria for elders in the church specify a man.

 

Now, if it weren't for all those pesky facts, we could just ordain women as elders and put them in leadership, couldn't we?  Why are we still arguing about what _should_ be clear?  The Bible is clear.  Mrs. White herself is rather clear.

The word "pastor" simply means "shepherd."  Women have people to whom they may attend and shepherd, just as men do.  For example, I am a teacher.  Yet I am also a pastor, though I am not listed on the church roles as such.  Women must shepherd their children, and they can also minister unto the sick and suffering, and to other women.  To these, they are pastors.  There is, however, another sense in which they may become pastors: marry one!  Does God not say that they twain shall be one flesh?  As I interpret, if a woman desires to work as a pastor, she should marry one.  His ordination becomes her responsibility as well by extension.  They are a team, and must work unitedly toward the purpose of ministering to the flock of God.  Her husband, the "ordained minister," will be the team's head, and she would serve him well in working with the women and children of the church, the sick and the suffering, as a hospitalitarian, receiving guests, etc.  Women can do much more than many have in this regard.  Here is, in fact, some of Mrs. White's guidance for women:

"There is a wide field in which our sisters may do good service for the Master in the various branches of the work connected with his cause. Through missionary labor they can reach a class that our ministers cannot. There are noble women who have had moral courage to decide in favor of the truth from the weight of evidence. They have conscientiously accepted the truth. They have tact, perception, and good ability, and will make successful workers for their Master. Christian women are called for. There is work neglected or done imperfectly that could be thoroughly accomplished by the help that sisters can give. There are so many kinds of work too laborious for women, which our brethren are called to engage in, that many branches of missionary work are neglected. Many things connected with different churches are left undone that women, if properly instructed, could attend to. Our sisters might serve as church clerks, and the church business would not be so sadly neglected. There are many other offices connected with the cause of God which our sisters are better qualified to fill than our brethren, and in which they might do efficient service."  {RH, December 19, 1878 par. 12}  

An obvious question surfaces from the above passage:  Why can women reach people that ministers cannot if women themselves are called to be ministers?  Could women reach people that women could not?  Most in the "ordinators" camp would likely seek to avoid the implications of statements like this, but, for those seeking the truth, they cannot be simply laid aside.

 

 

[Rossw]

My question is if God ordained EGW to the SDA denomination or just simply to do God's will to the people of earth. It seems more like it was the SDA denomination that took it upon themselves to give her credentials in order to get her paid. It is ridiculous to think EGW needed the denomination's credentials in order to God's work. The pro-WO side would have us believe EGW needed the denomination's credentials in order to do God's will. Logically that just doesn't make sense.

The pro-WO would have us believe that what I just said is in support of ordaining women but not every woman is EGW or got their credentials from God. That applies to men too of course. That is why we look at Scripture for our answers and not people.

[Green Cochoa]

8 minutes ago, Rossw said:

My question is if God ordained EGW to the SDA denomination or just simply to do God's will to the people of earth. It seems more like it was the SDA denomination that took it upon themselves to give her credentials in order to get her paid. It is ridiculous to think EGW needed the denomination's credentials in order to God's work. The pro-WO side would have us believe EGW needed the denomination's credentials in order to do God's will. Logically that just doesn't make sense.

The pro-WO would have us believe that what I just said is in support of ordaining women but not every woman is EGW or got their credentials from God. That applies to men too of course. That is why we look at Scripture for our answers and not people.

Those who entertain errors can never be fully logical, Ross.  Eventually, the truth will show them to be contradicting themselves.  Ellen White and Deborah are of the same class in this regard.  Many try to use the fact that the people made Deborah their judge as evidence that God made Deborah a leader with authority over them.  The Bible does not say this.  But, in order to support a stance clearly in opposition to the New Testament directions for church organization, they seek an example, so they make one of her--just as they do of Ellen White over the honorary credentials the church elected to give her.

[Rossw]

What your saying, Green, is the pro-WO camp think the SDA church has authority, not unlike the RCC, to give out meaningful ordination certificates. 

And they are the ones accusing us of Church tradition when we are just trying to focus on the Bible. It is interesting how twisted the arguments get in support of WO. I find enjoyment in unraveling all of it but it is a bit tragic too. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

We are all pastors to the world, but here she mentions pastors to the flock of God.

There is interesting reasoning among the anti-ordination people. They have their "proof texts" that does not mention the word "Ordination" Mrs. White has done everything that the "Proof texts" say a woman should do. The critics of ordination say that a woman can do everything Paul apparently says women should not do but says we can do them just as long as a woman is not ordained. They have added the idea that only ordained women are not to do these things.

I would like to respond to several separate points in the above.  

1) To label those who do not support the ordination of women as "critics of ordination" is simply a mischaracterization.  I support Biblical ordination.  The Bible does not support the ordination of women, but few would call It a "critic of ordination."

2) Mrs. White has not done everything that an ordained minister would ordinarily be expected to do.  For official statements on this, consider the following article by William Fagal, Associate Director of the White Estate.  For those wishing to sway the minds of people like myself who do not find support for women's ordination in the Bible or in the writings of Mrs. White, reading the following will help you understand how firm our foundation is, and perhaps what you must do to convert us.  With the facts on our side, I am not sure that you will find a way to do so, to be quite honest; however, I am always open to learning from the Bible or Ellen White, so if you can find support from them, you may have a chance.  (HINT: Your appeals to church traditions or practices are unavailing.)

http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article/143/women-s-ordination-faqs/9-ellen-g-white-and-the-ministry-of-women

3) The last statement in Kevin's quote above is simply specious.  Again, it is incorrect and a mischaracterization of the facts.  Those who base their stance on a plain "thus saith the LORD" have no need for such contradictions.